Shameless plug - https://lemmy.world/post/22765349
They forgot “We’re going to need prior authorization.”
So many here showing their true colors and demonstrating that they’re actually no better than the people they oppose.
What do you mean by this? Should people who cause incalculable harm to others not be removed from their position to cause harm?
Literally celebrating the murder of a person is what I mean.
Listen Batman, the world isnt black and white. A man who has harmed millions has seen punishment for harming millions. Whether or not you find it just because a judge, jury, and prosecution didn’t get to decide on that punishment according to some made up rules is your opinion. It does not speak to the “true colors” of the oppressed groups who are affected by the bullshit machine that is US healthcare.
Even if the penalty (death) can be morally justified it still shouldn’t be celebrated. Also, I oppose death penalty - the people celebrating this have no moral standing to oppose it too. They’re on the wrong side of history in my view.
there was nothing short of death that would stop that man from continuing to deny the right to live of millions of people. Money rules the world, do you think even if found guilty of genocide he’d face prison time? Do you think even if he was, miraculously, put in prison he’d go some place else but the most luxurious prison available for the shortest amount of time possible?
How many million dollar bottles of champagne do you think he drank with the money that he denied those who put their lives in his hands? Is that not a celebration of their deaths?
How is it wrong, to feel satisfaction that he finally met the fate he wrote for himself?
Law is typically enforced at the end of a gun. If the government won’t do anything to stop these people, someone else will.
I usually wouldn’t, but I do celebrate justice. I prefer it when people don’t need to be harmed, but sometimes there isn’t another option. For example, Hitler dying I think was great. I would have preferred him to be murdered earlier in fact. Let me know if you disagree with that.
Our justice system is fundamentally flawed. The wealthy will never see justice through the justice system. The system exists so that when injustice is done people don’t need to seek justice on their own. The system is supposed to handle it. When that system no longer works towards this purpose, it requires a new justice system. The wealthy need to be made to realize that subverting the justice system to protect themselves from it puts them in danger. Until it’s fixed, I welcome justice in this form as well.
See my other comment:
When a dragon is slain, we don’t mourn its death, we cheer the Dragonslayer.
I disagree with this metaphor. Humans aren’t inherently evil, in contrast to the dragon. Even though the guy definitely did evil shit as a CEO and is responsible for thousands of dead people, he is not inherently evil. I’m very sure he also did good things.
For me this is really important, because that’s exactly why I oppose death penalty. No human is absolutely evil, and thus in every person there is something worth preserving and being protected.
A couple things. I don’t see any billionaire as a human, and to be frank, they did it to themselves. They’ve spent decades spinning a narrative that they’re this special untouchable caste of modern-day demigods. That we have to try them differently and respectfully, because they have more money, and the closer you get to “God”, the further you get from “Human”.
Secondly, he chose to do evil. He willingly and without hesitation discarded his humanity. I can’t be bothered to feel bad for someone like that.
I disagree. Still thank you for replying - I appreciate it. It got me thinking about my personal position.
I’d like to inquire as to what, specifically, you disagree with. I understand that you don’t think any person is inherently evil, however I hold that actions are a reflection of one’s character. While this CEO may indeed have done a couple good turns for people he personally knew or cared about, his actions and decisions as the CEO of a health insurance company have inflicted incalculable suffering upon hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people and their families. As a human being, I could never imagine doing such things, nor do I want to.
This, to me, reflects a deeply sociopathic character. Selfish, arrogant, greedy, and malicious. This was a person who saw themselves above mere mortals such as you and I, whom he saw as tools, disposable and replaceable.
I agree with everything you say, up until the last sentence. Probably as a disclaimer, I study psychology and want to become a clinical psychotherapist. I deeply believe that no person wants to be bad. In fact, I am of the utmost conviction that every person has the potential to become a better person than they are right now. That does not absolve him of his crimes - in fact, it is quite the contrary: he chose to go down the path of evil and to condemn people to die. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot ever change to become better. It is a part of my life philosophy that every person can heal. Obviously many people won’t do so - this guy DEFINITELY would’ve had the chance to go to a psychotherapist himself, for sure. But that does not mean that he deserved to die. My argumentation is heavily based on Albert Ellis (one of the founders of cognitive-behavioural therapy) and REBT. In short, Ellis said that our actions do not determine us as whole human beings. The fact that we often act badly doesn’t make us bad human beings, nor does the fact that we act well makes us good. We are simply humans, and to judge us means putting yourself in the shoes of a God. We can and should judge our actions, by all means - but we are far, far more than actions. To judge a person as a whole is a position I do not want to take. And even though this guy wanted to see himself as a God, I personally want to stay human and recognize that he is and was a broken spirit and a human, just as you and I are. Even though he might have wanted to discard his humanity, he still is and stays human.
Tl;Dr - terrible actions, has committed countless crimes. But his actions don’t determine his worth as a human. Thus I do not want to say that he deserved to die, nor that he was evil as a human.
terrible actions, has committed countless crimes. But his actions don’t determine his worth as a human.
Alright, I’m confused with this take. What does determine the worth of a human? I would argue it’s only their actions that do, as that’s the only thing that has an effect on the world. Whether he believes he’s doing good or evil doesn’t really matter if he is actually doing evil.
Value is pretty much required to be something that can be measured. You can’t measure all possible futures. You can measure what they’ve chosen to act on. I don’t really care if Hitler was mislead into believing Jews were evil and could have been a better person. I care that he chose to do immense harm to innocent people. It would have been better had he been murdered earlier, regardless of if there was a chance you could convince him with a really good argument or whatever.
Sure, I hope everyone improves and it’s a shame when people die, but when someone is actively choosing to remove that choice from others, their value is less than that of everyone else.
Dragons aren’t inharently evil either. They mostly just want to horde wealth. Sure, they do evil things to amass that wealth, but that doesn’t make them evil, right?
Wait, was this about dragons or the ultra-wealthy? I forgot what I was talking about.
Yes, good point. I agree. Maybe there’s also a difference in perception of these tales, because when a dragon is slain the people can regain their wealth. In this case though, the wealth of the CEO doesn’t get transferred to the people. Buuut one can argue that we have an inheritance tax, thus part of his hoarded money WILL get transferred to the people, in which case the murderer is actually returning the wealth to the people and the dragon metaphor isn’t that invalid after all. It gets very quickly very murky ethically. I presume that while the wealth is parked away in some off-shore, probably some of it at least will return to the State. A lot depends though on the tax rate, how exactly the taxing goes, who does it,…
Long story short - this guy was way too rich, no question asked. That’s for sure.
As the other comment says, the story is almost never about taking back the wealth. It’s about stopping them from doing more harm. The people don’t celebrate because they can take their wealth back. They celebrate because they’re no longer being murdered by a horrible monster.
With this said, someone will take his place. If you slay enough dragons the dragons will start to worry about if they’re next though. They’ll hopefully try to fix the system that they broke so they will be honestly tried for their crimes instead of murdered.
That is a very good point - thank you for bringing it up. You are right.
I hope this death was enough for the rich people to realize that they need to change, and that no more people will die. I presume that’s something we can agree upon.
This singular one will not. As sad as it is, it has to become more expected for them to fear it. Terrorism isn’t good, but it can be used to do good.
The usual impetus for slaying the dragon is to stop it from eating people.
This doesn’t work here, because by death of the CEO the insurance of the USA probably won’t be switched to a public healthcare. The dragon will continue eating people, simply with a different head.
I didn’t say this was an effective way to solve the problem, nor do I think the other poster’s assertion is accurate.
humans aren’t inherently evil. Most aren’t, I agree. But some just are.
Thank you for letting me know about my phrasing. I disagree, and have corrected my post now. Thank you!
It’s all fun and games as long as you get to decice who the dragons are. The people you oppose have their’s too.
the people we oppose have been widening the wealth gap, shrinking the middle class, and pushing more people into poverty. And in America - not having enough money means you, or your loved one, dies.
That particular dragon was in charge of denying as many insurance claims as possible without getting anyone too ravenous for his blood. He was playing a game with people’s lives, eventually he was bound to lose. His true cause of death was greed.
Unless you’re a billionaire who hoards wealth, you’re no dragon, and nobody cares about you until you step out of line of being an obedient money cow
(The ones hoarding the wealth like dragons are the dragons)
Well, really, they did it to themselves. We didn’t turn them into greedy, avaricious weath-hoarding dragons, they did. The closer one moves the slider to “God”, the further it moves from “Human”.
What is happening in this meme?
The meme is usually disapproval of something followed by approval of something that basically the same thing. The approval is of a CEO being murdered, but advocating violence is against the rules so the “approval” has been removed by moderators.
Gotta love how those upvotes stuck around though, hahaha. Denial denied. Fucking /c/news mods are spineless assholes.
Yep, someone mentioned on a post the
murdererhero may never be named, I replied “Good” My comment was removed shortly after, so I recommented “Too bad, so sad”I say we start calling him Geralt.
I don’t understand the “removed by mod” part.
That removed panel is normally Drake approving the final panel.
Drake was unfortunately turned into a meme at some point in the past. There are alternatives available. Can I offer you a laforge version for your next meme?
It’s almost a Fibonacci sequence
Hang on I’ll reverse the polarity, see if we can’t get an Avogadro Geordi
Art
The “happy drake” reaction is removed by mods, like comments about it.
“Removed by mod” means the comment was celebratory response.
The glee peasants are showing should make the 1% nervous
I’ve been thinking that ever since that dumb “submarine” sank at the Titanic. I don’t feel particularly sorry for the people who died (other than the kid who apparently didn’t want to be there in the first place), but the outright glee I saw a lot of people express online was surprising.
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything. As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed, newcomers didn’t understand it, or they decided they wanted to see how much more extraction they could get away with thinking they’ll be able to reign in any unrest before it gets too bad; probably some combination of those and other factors. It’s a dangerous game to play, though, and it seems like explosive moments are closer than the wealthy powers realize.
Not that I think there’s any real organizing power behind the scenes, just that in the past a lot of people came to a collective understanding of a system that could bring a lot of financial stability to a lot of people.
It’s “rein in any unrest”. I’m not pointing this out to be a grammar nazi, but because “reign in” is an interesting slip in the context of your post.
Oh, thanks; I’ll blame autocorrect and not paying enough attention
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable
Thats because we stopped them, they always try as much as they are allowed to.
The deregulation of the 80s and 90s really screwed this country over.
Same with the UK and privatisation
In summary: Neoliberalism.
Neoliberals always surprise me, How do they think that more neoliberalism will fix problems caused by neoliberalism?
As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the threat of an alternative and “proved” that capitalism was the superior ideology, pushing their confidence that they could do no wrong through the roof.
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything.
Actually, the richest people in America were terrified of FDR and the New Deal, and even attempted a fascist coup in order to overthrow him. Fun fact, George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was implicated in it!
Smedley Butler was a goddamn hero and should’ve been the next president
Well, at least he got to be played by Robert De Niro in a movie…sort of. That’s something.
Buddy look at the tax code post great depression. There was no agreement the government said fuck you pay them.
Not much formal organizing needs to happen, based on the way this particular CEO found out.
I fully agree. If I were a billionaire, I would be “let’s get a team together and come up with a strategy” levels of nervous. See, the 1% has sort of dehumanized themselves, by creating this decades-long narrative that they’re this untouchable caste almost on the level of Demigods, and the closer you get to God, the further you get from Human. Now that one has been shot and killed in broad daylight in the middle of NYC, and again with the idiots on the homemade submarine, that narrative is obviously untrue. When a dragon is slain, we don’t mourn its death, we cheer the Dragonslayer. So, if I were in the 1%, I’d be very worried about appearing all too human, all too quickly.
Doomsday bunkers were an obsession back in the 2000s for billionaires. If you think about their ideas from that framework it puts some of their stupid inventions into perspective. The cybertruck is the vehicle Musk would want to be in during a riot against him if he isn’t on Mars at the time.
Considering how fragile it is, its the vehicle i hope he’s in in a riot against him
I saw whistlin disel’s video on it, and it seemed to prevent people from getting to you despite being easy to damage the vehicle itself. I think it sucks too, but most cars don’t use double pane shatterproof windows on the side. It seems like every window is similar glass to a standard windshield so it won’t collapse.
We are currently at a wealth disparity that outpaces the gap that precipitated the French Revolution and invention of the guillotine.
I mean, it really is the only thing left
Sometimes things line up in a way that seems intentional.
What the FUCK.
Oh don’t worry, they won’t stop you from getting the anesthesia - they’re just going to make you pay 1000% above the wholesale price of it. Which you can negotiate down just like Blue Cross does. Good luck with that though. Anyway who knows, maybe their CEO will go visit New York.
Looks like they reversed the decision. Can’t imagine what convinced them to not go through with it.
Does anyone know who the shooter was? I want to send them roses.
where has jerma been?
Jerma would never have left the body behind
yeah he would have unhinged his jaw like a snake and eaten it immediately
Nice try, NYPD
What do you think the chance is that this becomes a trend?
If America went from school shootings to billionaire shootings I wouldn’t be mad. Think billionaires can afford pretty good security details though.
I would invest in it if I could
